1. health and fitness

ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
Addressing Health Care Cost Growth
in Medicare: A Framework
Key Points
n
Even though health care cost growth
has slowed in recent years, Medicare
still faces serious mid- and long-term
financial challenges. Both the number of
Americans enrolled in Medicare and the
cost per enrollee are increasing.
n
To reduce health care costs, any proposal
for Medicare reform must accomplish
one or more of the following: reduce
the prices paid for services, reduce the
utilization of services, shift to more costeffective services, and/or keep high-risk
patients healthier.
n
To evaluate public policy proposals to
reform Medicare, policymakers need to
consider how they affect the cost of the
program, how they affect beneficiaries’
access to care, how they affect the
quality of care, whether they slow the
growth in health care spending rather
than shifting costs from one payer
to another, and whether they give
providers and their patients incentives
that encourage coordinated care to help
control costs and improve quality.
T
he federal Medicare program provides health insurance to
most Americans aged 65 and over and to individuals under age
65 who have long-term disabilities. Medicare is a vital source of
health coverage for millions of Americans, but it currently faces
serious mid- and long-term financing challenges. Both the number of Americans enrolled in Medicare and the cost per enrollee
are increasing. Even though health care cost growth has slowed in
recent years, and this phenomenon is not certain going forward,
long-term challenges remain.
Rising health care costs per beneficiary for Medicare is compounded by more enrollees due to the aging of the population
and the retirement of the baby boomer generation. Medicare’s
current financing will not sustain the program for the long term,
and over time it will place increasing financial demands on employers, workers, beneficiaries, and the federal budget. This pressure on the federal budget created by health care costs taking up
an increasing portion can only worsen the fiscal challenges facing
policymakers seeking to achieve a balanced federal budget.
This brief addresses a significant challenge facing Medicare—
health care cost growth—by providing a framework for
understanding and evaluating the primary options available for
controlling costs and outlining a number of options to reform
Medicare and the potential effects of those options on cost
growth, care quality, and access to care.
The American Academy of Actuaries is a 18,500-member professional association whose mission is to serve the public and the U.S.
actuarial profession. The Academy assists public policymakers on
all levels by providing leadership, objective expertise, and actuarial
advice on risk and financial security issues. The Academy also sets
qualification, practice, and professionalism standards for actuaries in
the United States.
©2015 American Academy of Actuaries.
All Rights Reserved.
1850 M Street NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036
Tel 202 223 8196, Fax 202 872 1948
www.actuary.org
Mary Downs, Executive Director
David J. Nolan, Director of Communications
Craig Hanna, Director of Public Policy
Cori Uccello, Senior Health Fellow
Heather Jerbi, Assistant Director of Public Policy
Recent efforts to address Medicare cost
growth include provisions in the Affordable
Care Act (ACA) designed to reduce Medicare
spending, increase Medicare revenues, and
develop new health care delivery systems
and payment models to improve health care
quality and cost efficiency. These measures have
improved Medicare’s financial condition, but
problems remain. While these provisions in the
ACA were important steps forward, they do not
go far enough to put Medicare back on a sound
financial footing.
The traditional Medicare program provides coverage for
inpatient hospital services (Part A), which is financed largely through
earmarked payroll taxes, and for physicians and outpatient care
services (Part B), which is financed through beneficiary premiums
and federal general tax revenues. Medicare Advantage (MA) plans are
offered by private insurers. The plans must cover all of the services
that the traditional program covers but may offer extra benefits not
included in the traditional program either at no additional cost or
for an additional premium. Medicare prescription drug benefits (Part
D) are available through private insurers as a stand-alone plan to
supplement traditional Medicare or as part of a Medicare Advantage
plan.
Individuals opting for the traditional program (Parts A and B), also
can purchase Medicare supplement insurance (Medigap). They also
may have access to retiree health coverage and Medicaid (which are
not discussed in this issue brief ). Medigap coverage is sold through
private insurers and may provide coverage and/or pay for some costs
(i.e., copays, coinsurance, deductibles) that traditional Medicare
does not. Medigap plans require a monthly premium in addition to
the Part B premium, is guaranteed renewable, and only covers one
individual. Medigap policies sold after Jan. 1, 2006, aren’t allowed to
include prescription drug coverage.
Major Medicare-related provisions of the
ACA include:
n Reductions to provider payment updates. The
annual updates for fee-for-service (FFS) provider payment rates will be adjusted downward to reflect productivity improvements.
Basing Medicare Advantage (MA) plan payments on these reduced FFS rates. MA plan
payments will be reduced gradually relative to
FFS costs.
n Health care payment and delivery system improvements. Pilot programs, demonstration
projects, and other reforms will be implemented to increase the focus on delivering
high quality and cost-effective care. These
include initiatives such as accountable care
organizations, bundled payments, dual demonstrations, and value-based payments.
n Increases in Medicare revenues. Provisions to
increase Medicare revenues include increasing the Hospital Insurance (HI) payroll tax
for earnings above an unindexed threshold,
temporarily freezing the income thresholds
for Part B income-related premiums, and increasing Part D premiums for higher-income
beneficiaries.
n Creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The board was created
to submit recommendations for changes to
provider payments if Medicare spending
exceeded a target per capita growth rate.
n Broad Categories of Policy Options
While the U.S. has experienced a recent
slowdown in health spending growth,
additional efforts will be required to put
Medicare on a more sustainable path. Options
for reducing Medicare spending, many included
as part of debt and deficit reduction efforts, can
be grouped into the following broad categories,
Members of the Medicare/Medicaid Reform Work Group include: Martin E. Staehlin, chairperson, MAAA, FSA, FCA; Audrey Halvorson,
chairperson Health Care Cost Work Group, MAAA, FSA; Timothy F. Harris, MAAA, FSA; Malgorzata Jankowiak-Roslanowska, MAAA, ASA;
Jinn-Feng Lin, MAAA, FSA, FCA; and Thomas F. Wildsmith, MAAA, FSA.
2
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
which are discussed in more detail below.
n Reducing the cost of the traditional Medicare
fee-for-service (FFS) program, including
reforming the physician payment system,
adopting managed care techniques, and revising the benefit design of traditional Medicare;
Reducing the cost of the Medigap coverage
through changes to the benefit design;
n Reducing the cost of the Medicare Advantage (MA) program by revising the payment
system for competitive bidding;
n Reducing the cost of the Part D program by
incorporating proposals to reduce spending
for prescription drugs;
n Fundamentally restructuring Medicare
through transitioning to a premium support
program or mandatory participation in managed care; and
n Broader approaches to managing the cost of
Medicare, which could include restructuring the benefit package to encourage more
cost-effective care, focusing on payment
reform (e.g., bundled payments, capitation)
and delivery system reforms (e.g., accountable
care organizations) that better align financial
incentives.1
n While these approaches vary in significant
ways, they have certain common themes,
such as improving the alignment of financial
incentives, using managed care techniques to
better coordinate care, ensuring that benefits
are structured to encourage the effective use
of care, and mitigating cost-shifting from one
program/payer to another. From an actuarial
perspective, to produce real savings, any option
to reduce spending must accomplish one or
more of the following:
n Reduce the prices paid for services;
Reduce the utilization of services and reduce
waste;
n Shift to more cost-effective services; and
n Keep high-risk patients healthier.
n 1
Reducing the Cost of the Traditional
Medicare Fee-For-Service (FFS) Program
Traditional Medicare is based on a FFS benefit
design, often paying for volume rather than
value. While allowing some flexibility for
providers to deliver and beneficiaries to
receive certain services, the FFS structure has
limitations in terms of incorporating care
management and utilization management
techniques, which can lead to increased costs. A
number of pilot and demonstration programs
have led to alternate approaches to payment
and delivery of care, including bundled
payments and accountable care organizations.
These types of programs, which are used in
the private market, often offer the potential
for shared savings if providers meet certain
quality and financial performance metrics. In
addition to these reforms, other approaches
have been proposed to help reduce the cost of
the traditional FFS program, many of which
also focus on aligning financial incentives to
encourage better quality of care.
REFORM THE PHYSICIAN PAYMENT SYSTEM
Physician payment rates historically were set
by the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) system,
which intended to limit the growth in Medicare
spending for physician services. The SGR was
enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act
of 1997. However, since 2003 Congress has
overridden the physician fee cuts that the SGR
formula would require (this override is known
as the “doc fix”). In April 2015, Congress passed
the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization
Act (MACRA) of 2015, which repealed the
SGR and replaced it with a 0.5 percent annual
payment update through 2019, followed by
a five-year period of no updates. Beginning
in 2026, payment updates will depend on
performance-based measures. It is unclear the
extent to which this new system may address
Medicare spending growth, but it does provide
incentives to better align payments with the
or more information on general payment and delivery system reforms, see the Academy’s publications on health care
F
costs: www.actuary.org/healthcosts.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
3
provision of high-value care as compared to a
FFS payment system.
REVISE THE BENEFIT DESIGN OF
TRADITIONAL MEDICARE
The design of the benefits provided to
individuals enrolling in traditional Medicare
(as opposed to private MA plans) has several
shortcomings: the lack of an out-of-pocket
(OOP) maximum leaves beneficiaries
unprotected against catastrophic costs; most
beneficiaries have supplemental coverage (e.g.,
Medigap) with low cost-sharing requirements
that reduce incentives to seek cost-effective
care;2 and the cost-sharing structure is not
ideal for encouraging prudent use of health
care. Updating the traditional cost-sharing
features could help better align beneficiary
incentives to seek cost-effective care. Meeting
this goal, however, may require changes to
supplemental coverage as well, because that
coverage can reduce or eliminate the incentives
for beneficiaries to seek cost-effective care.
Proposals to update the traditional benefit
design recommend changing or combining the
Part A and B cost-sharing requirements and
adding a maximum OOP limit.
The effect of a benefit redesign on overall
program costs and beneficiary OOP spending
would depend on the design specifics. Changes
could be designed to raise, lower, or be neutral
with respect to overall or average beneficiary
spending. Even if average beneficiary spending
remains unchanged, however, individual
beneficiaries could be affected differently
and could face higher or lower spending. For
instance, adding a catastrophic cap but leaving
average beneficiary spending unchanged would
increase OOP spending for many beneficiaries,
but decrease it for those with the greatest health
care needs.
Broad increases in cost sharing, rather than
targeted increases, have been shown to reduce
not only unnecessary care, but also necessary
care, especially among the low income and
chronically ill. For these reasons, policymakers
often consider ways to shield lower-income
beneficiaries from cost-sharing increases.
VALUE-BASED INSURANCE DESIGN
Value-based insurance design (VBID) is an
approach intended to encourage cost-effective
care. A VBID approach would lower cost
sharing for high-value services and increase the
cost sharing for low-value services.3 The ACA
provided some movement in this direction
by providing for Medicare coverage of certain
preventive services with no cost sharing.
Comparative effectiveness research, which
includes head-to-head trials that compare new
treatments and technologies to those already
existing, can facilitate the identification of lowand high-value services. Adjusting cost sharing
to align incentives with effective use of services,
such as decreasing the cost share with higher
compliance of treatment, has shown promise
in reducing spending in the non-Medicare
market—most often for prescription drugs.4
ADOPTION OF MANAGED CARE
TECHNIQUES
By design, the original Medicare program
does not incorporate utilization management
techniques. However, use of quality metrics for
provider incentive arrangements could lead to
lower costs. One example, which has already
been implemented under the ACA, is reducing
payments for hospitals that are classified as
having excess avoidable readmissions.
aiser Family Foundation, Medigap Enrollment Among New Medicare Beneficiaries (April 2015): http://kff.org/medicare/
K
issue-brief/medigap-enrollment-among-new-medicare-beneficiaries/.
3
High-value services can be defined as those that “provide substantial health benefit relative to the cost.” Generally, this
means there is strong evidence of a clinical benefit. Low-value services would not provide substantial benefit relative to the
cost, and there may not be strong evidence of a clinical benefit. See, for instance, “Applying Value-Based Insurance Design
to Low-Value Health Services,” Mark Fendrick, et al., Health Affairs 29(11), November 2010.
4
See for instance, “Evidence That Value-Based Insurance Can Be Effective,” Michael E. Chernew, et al., Health Affairs 29(3):
530-536, March 2010.
2
4
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
Historically, the traditional Medicare
benefit plan design does not include
medical management provisions, such as
preauthorization requirements for hospital
admissions or other costly services. There
often is no clear responsibility for coordinating
all of the care a beneficiary receives. With
fragmented information and benefits allowing
self-referral, it is important that forms of care
coordination are developed further. While a
primary care physician (PCP) gatekeeper model
could be difficult to implement in traditional
Medicare due to its open network nature, ACOs
and comprehensive primary care incentive
initiatives are being tested through certain
authorized pilot programs.
Some of the utilization management
techniques that could be useful in traditional
Medicare include elements of demand
management. These techniques are designed
to lower a member’s need for health care
services—nurse advice lines or targeted
outreach, self-care and self-evaluation programs
(www.healthfinder.gov, sponsored by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services,
which is not Medicare-specific), health risk
appraisals, shared decision-making programs,
and personal health records (PHR).
Utilization management techniques and
reimbursement strategies that target lower
utilization, higher-quality health care outcomes,
and lower costs can be applied to traditional
Medicare FFS, as well as MA and private sector
plans.
Traditional Medicare has a potential
advantage in this respect—a large amount of
available claims data. Retrospective claim review
and pattern review can help in identifying
problem areas and developing solutions.
Investment in data analysis and provider
profiling may lead to savings in the future.
SUMMARY
To reduce the cost of traditional Medicare
FFS program, a coordinated approach is
necessary. Reforming the physician payment
system has the potential to reduce costs per
service. And, changes to benefit design and
cost sharing as well as some elements of
utilization management could help to prevent
large increases in utilization of services.
Restructuring beneficiaries’ cost sharing could
be combined with VBID to encourage use of
cost-effective care, and payment adjustments
could incentivize efficient provider behavior.
Both of these elements might result in a shift
toward more quality and cost-effective services.
With the Medicare population growing
and beneficiary longevity increasing, it is
in the long-term interest of the program to
incorporate changes that will help balance cost,
utilization, and quality of care.
Reducing the Cost of Medigap Policies
Through Benefit Design Changes
Medicare Supplement insurance (Medigap)
is obtained from insurance companies
by Medicare beneficiaries to provide
Criteria for Evaluating Potential Options
Improving the sustainability of the health system requires slowing the
growth in overall health spending, rather than just shifting the costs
from one payer to another. Unless system-wide spending is addressed,
implementing options to control Medicare spending will have
limited long-term effectiveness. While controlling costs is vital to the
sustainability of the program, it is not the only consideration. Slowing
the growth in health spending, while maintaining or improving the
quality of care, will require provider payment methods and health care
delivery systems that encourage coordinated care.
How can and should effective proposals for improving Medicare’s
financial condition be evaluated? Some criteria include:
■ H
ow
it affects the cost of the program;
■ H
ow
it affects beneficiaries’ access to care;
■ H
ow
it affects the quality of care;
■ W
hether
it slows the growth in health spending, rather than just
shifting costs from one payer to another; and
■ W
hether
it gives health care providers, and their patients, incentives
that encourage the kind of coordinated care that could help both
control costs and improve quality.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
5
additional coverage and help pay for some
of the significant cost-sharing requirements
associated with traditional FFS Medicare.
Currently, enrollment in Medigap is primarily
concentrated in lower-cost plan options,
specifically the lowest-cost plan options
with first-dollar coverage.5 A Kaiser Family
Foundation brief notes that it is unclear how
enrollees choose among available Medigap
plans (e.g., premium level, insurer, etc.).6
Currently, there are 14 allowable standard
Medigap plans (policies A through N).
Many Medigap plans have provided firstdollar coverage for most services, insulating
beneficiaries from the impact of the FFS
program deductibles. One approach to
addressing health care spending growth is
to reduce the level of net benefits covered by
Medigap policies so that there would exist
some minimum level of patient cost sharing.
With the passage of the MACRA, policymakers
embraced this approach. Beginning in 2020,
Medigap plans C and F, which covered Part B
deductibles, will no longer cover the annual
deductible for new enrollees. Individuals with
existing Medigap plans and new enrollees up to
2020 will not be affected.
Better understanding of the needs of the
Medigap population may help determine a way
to restructure the entire program, including
perhaps existing policies, into three generic
policy types—a low-cost option, a medium-cost
option, and a higher-cost option. This structure
could still preserve standardized benefits across
the three policy types, which would be similar
to current options for Medigap policies A
through N. It might also be feasible to consider
two benefit levels (low-cost and high-cost) and
a maximum OOP consideration.
Market forces and developing ACA
environment could further diminish the
need for a Medigap market. The landscape
for benefits for retirees (at least for the vast
majority of retirees over age 65) is changing
rapidly. The effect of private and public
exchanges is uncertain. Dual eligible (people
eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid)
demonstration projects also may have
an impact on strategic direction for that
population. Medicare beneficiaries with
Medicare plus Medigap coverage could change
their coverage choices significantly in the next
three years. Enrollment in MA plans continues
to grow rapidly. As such, there could be two
main dimensions that evolve for the future.
One would be an increase in the number of
beneficiaries moving to Medicare Advantage,
in which 28 percent of all beneficiaries are
already enrolled,7 networks have succeeded,
and competition has kept premiums low.
The second would be a decreased number
of traditional Medicare beneficiaries with
simplified Medigap options in locations with
smaller populations and in which MA providers
cannot create a viable network. A marketplace
with public and private exchanges could
further reduce the need for Medigap policies
if other coverage is made available through the
exchanges to Medicare eligibles, but the issue of
affordable premiums might still exist for some.
Reducing the Cost of the Medicare
Advantage Program
The MA program was created to offer a more
cost-effective alternative to Medicare FFS by
providing beneficiaries access to coordinated
delivery systems and care management with
enhanced benefits. Proponents of the MA
program contend that a well-managed MA
plan costs less than the FFS benefits and offers a
comprehensive benefit package for a modest, or
even no, premium. MA plans are reimbursed by
the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
(CMS) based on a benchmark rate, which is
the maximum amount paid to health plans and
aiser Family Foundation, “Medigap: Spotlight on Enrollment, Premiums, and Recent Trends” (August 2013):
K
http://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8412-2.pdf.
6
Ibid.
7
Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC), The Medicare Advantage program: Status report (March 2014):
http://medpac.gov/documents/reports/mar14_ch13.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
5
6
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
is set by law. When the benchmark is higher
than what it costs an MA plan to provide the
FFS benefits, the MA plan receives a portion
of the differential and is required to either
enhance the benefits beyond FFS level or reduce
the beneficiaries’ Part B/Part D premiums.
In most geographic areas,8 MA plans have
provided comprehensive benefits that replace
the combination of FFS and Medigap policies.
Over time, due to policymaker objectives (e.g.,
to enable beneficiaries access to MA plans in
all geographic areas) and the subsequently
enacted payment policy changes (that set
the mechanism by which the benchmark is
determined), the MA benchmarks grew to be
higher than the FFS costs in many geographic
areas. An effort was made to address this in
the ACA, which initiated a reduction in federal
payments to MA plans over time, to bring
them closer to the average costs of care under
the traditional Medicare program. The ACA
also provided for new bonus payments to
plans based on quality ratings, beginning in
2012, and required plans beginning in 2014
to maintain a medical loss ratio of at least 85
percent, restricting the share of premiums that
MA plans can use for administrative expenses
and profits.
Various approaches have been proposed to
reduce the cost of the MA program. Several
recent trends may make the near future a
key time to revamp the MA program. The
enrollment in private health plans relative to
traditional Medicare has increased to 30 percent
of the Medicare participants in 2014. This shift
to Medicare Advantage has continued since
2005, when private health plans first bid to
enter Medicare Advantage with the new Part
D program. However, participation across
individual states ranges from a low of 1 percent
to a high of 46 percent and is dependent on
funding from CMS and the relative cost of
care in the region. Those plans that can afford
to add extra benefits based on payment levels
8
established by CMS for that region might have
higher enrollment, which will, in turn, affect
program costs. As ACO programs within FFS
Medicare reduce cost growth, this will increase
pressure on MA plans to be competitive.
REVISE PAYMENT SYSTEM TO ENCOURAGE
GREATER PRICE COMPETITION
Competitive bidding is an approach in which
payment rates would be set using an average of
submitted bids. Under this approach, payment
rates would not be directly linked to the FFS
costs, although various versions of competitive
bidding include capping the average bids at the
FFS levels of costs or including the projected
FFS costs as one of the “competitive bids.”
An argument for implementing competitive
bidding is that it would level the playing
field among geographic regions within the
MA program by paying plans based on a
defined level of benefits (founded on actuarial
equivalence relative to FFS benefits) and by
using market forces to fund enhanced benefits.
Competitive bidding can encourage plans to
be more efficient and could result in lower
benchmarks as higher-cost plans withdraw
from the market. Most of the federal cost
savings in competitive bidding would result
from payment reductions in counties in
which MA plans are more efficient than the
FFS program. In counties in which plan bids
currently exceed FFS cost, a pure competitivebidding approach could result in maintaining
payment levels above FFS. This may increase
the likelihood of preserving access to MA plans
in rural areas compared to the approach to
reducing MA payments by phasing them down
to 100 percent of FFS.
An argument against competitive bidding is
that an immediate transition to such a system
would be highly disruptive to beneficiaries
due to the potential elimination of access to
enhanced benefits or a significant increase in
premiums for enhanced benefits. The resulting
ccording to MedPAC, a majority of Medicare beneficiaries have access to an MA plan (March 2014):
A
http://medpac.gov/documents/reports/mar14_ch13.pdf?sfvrsn=0.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
7
net migration out of MA plans into the FFS
program and Medicare Supplement plans,
especially in high-cost areas, could offset the
savings to the government that would be gained
by preserving membership in the MA program.
It also could lead to fewer plans in the market.
SUMMARY
With approximately 30 percent of Medicare
beneficiaries enrolled in an MA plan, the
cost of Medicare Advantage is a key factor
in the overall cost of the Medicare program.
MA plans are paid based on benchmark rates
that are set administratively. Congress has
adjusted the payment rates to MA plans over
time. More recently, Congress has provided
bonus payments based on quality ratings.
An alternative to this administrative pricing
approach would be a competitive bidding
system in which the payment rates would
be set using an average of submitted bids.
Competitive bidding would attempt to use
market forces to ensure more equitable payment
levels across different geographic regions
and encourage plans to be more efficient. An
immediate transition to a competitive bidding
system, however, could have adverse effects on
beneficiaries by reducing the number of plans
available or increasing the cost of enhanced
benefits.
Reducing the Cost of the Part D Program
Proposals to reduce spending for prescription
drugs include requiring CMS to negotiate drug
prices under Part D, extending drug rebates to
individuals who are eligible for both Medicare
and Medicaid, establishing a public Part D
option, decreasing overutilization, lowering cost
sharing for generics and raising cost sharing
for brand names, and opening up preferred
pharmacy networks.9
By reducing the prices paid for prescription
drugs, these options would lower Part D
spending and reduce its growth rate. To the
9
8
extent that prescription drug companies
respond by increasing their prices in the private
sector, costs would be shifted from Medicare to
the private sector.
Lowering Part D spending also would reduce
beneficiary premiums for Part D plans. In some
cases, the copayments for certain prescription
drugs also could be reduced.
The major argument advanced by opponents
of negotiation of drug prices under Part D is
that reducing the prices paid for prescription
drugs potentially could reduce research and
development in the pharmaceutical industry.
Introducing a public Part D option that would
compete with private Part D plans could
lead to some providers leaving the market.
Some proponents believe a public plan could
negotiate lower prices; opponents believe that it
could reduce the choices available to enrollees.
SUMMARY
Most of the savings in the prescription drug
reform proposals would come from reducing
the prices paid for prescriptions. Some savings
could result from benefit adjustments that
support a shift to utilization of generic drugs or
preferred brand drugs. However, it is unlikely
that changes would reduce utilization materially.
It would take a significant behavioral shift both
on the part of providers and beneficiaries to
slow utilization trend. In addition, taking into
account the specific aspects of the Medicare
population, it is not clear how the utilization
adjustments (other than shift to generic or more
appropriate medications usage) would impact
cost of total medical care. Overutilization of
prescription drugs is a significant challenge in
controlling health care costs.
Fundamentally Restructuring the
Medicare Program
Some policy experts have argued that a
fundamental restructuring of the Medicare
program could result in a more efficient
ther policy options that have been proposed would need to be evaluated, including reducing the number of protected
O
classes and limiting the number of Part D plans an insurer could offer.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
and cost-effective program. Many of these
considerations would affect not only Medicare
FFS but also MA plans.
TRANSITION TO A PREMIUM SUPPORT OR
COMPETITIVE BIDDING MODEL
These two proposed approaches would change
Medicare from a defined benefit plan to a
defined contribution plan. Under a premium
support approach, the government would limit
the amount it contributes toward Medicare
coverage relative to current levels, with
beneficiaries paying additional premiums to
cover any difference between plan premiums
and the government contribution. The level
of growth in government contributions would
change over time, in accordance with inflation
or average premium growth. Recent premium
support proposals incorporate competitive
bidding methods as a way of determining the
government’s contribution.
Moving to a defined contribution program
would result in shifting the risk of health
spending growth away from the government
and toward beneficiaries. Depending on how
the government contribution is set, federal
Medicare spending could be lower than
currently projected. Those savings could result
from a shift in costs from the government to
Medicare beneficiaries, but that depends on
how utilization management, administrative
costs, and provider payment rates under
private plans would compare to those under
traditional Medicare over time. Additionally,
the total growth in spending would depend
on the proportion of the Medicare population
that would drop health care coverage under a
defined contribution approach if health care
cost increases exceed the federal government’s
premium subsidy increases. Over time, the
increase in the cost of insurance could cause
premiums to become unaffordable for seniors
who are on a fixed income.
Access to Medicare and private insurance
10
would depend on the difference between the
government contribution and the premium. The
greater the share of costs that are shifted from
the government to beneficiary premiums, the
more likely that beneficiaries will opt for less
generous plans. Although having less generous
plans could encourage beneficiaries to seek
more cost-effective care, some could forgo
needed care. The pressure to reduce plan costs
also could compromise the quality of care. Such
a system, for instance, might lead to a lessexpensive, second-tier delivery system, which
may be much more limited in the types and/or
quality of providers available.
Although it could result in an indirect tax on
younger generations, one option would be to
allow Medicare-eligible individuals to purchase
health insurance through the exchanges at a
limited cost. Raising the average age of enrollees
in exchanges could increase exchange premiums.
Because of the 3:1 limit in the ACA on rating
variation by age, a portion of those higher costs
would be passed on to younger adults. Allowing
Medicare-eligible individuals to purchase
coverage through an exchange would require
another tier in the 3:1 limit on the ratio of the
highest exchange premium to the lowest (other
than juvenile) exchange premium.
INCREASE IN MANAGED HEALTH CARE
PARTICIPATION
To supplement the existing managed care
available through MA programs, CMS could
add a primary care case management (PCCM)
requirement and/or participation in an ACO.
This approach is comparable to experience in
some state Medicaid programs in which eligible
individuals have the option of choosing from
a menu of managed care options. A number of
Medicare ACO demonstration programs also
have indicated improvements in the quality of
care for Medicare beneficiaries; however, it is
important to note that these improvements have
not always been at a lower short-term cost.10
MS News Release: Medicare’s delivery system reform initiatives achieve significant savings and quality improvements –
C
off to a strong start, Jan. 30, 2014: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2014pres/01/20140130a.html. See also Evaluation of
CMMI Accountable Care Organization Initiatives, L&M Policy Research (Nov. 3, 2013): http://innovation.cms.gov/Files/
reports/PioneerACOEvalReport1.pdf.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
9
SUMMARY
Much of the cost savings associated with
the options in this section likely would be a
result of either cost shifting or a reduction in
overutilization. The premium support approach
or allowing Medicare eligibles to purchase
coverage through an exchange may simply shift
costs from the Medicare program to a younger
generation. The managed care option could
help reduce or eliminate waste associated with
overutilization of services. Any fundamental
restructure of the Medicare program will need
to take into account whether more costs are
passed on to beneficiaries. As policymakers
and regulators consider the various options
for reform, it will be important to continue
to examine the ACO demonstration projects
and the early 2015 care management fee for
Medicare eligibles with two or more chronic
conditions to better understand their short- and
long-term effects on Medicare costs.
Broader Approaches to Managing the
Cost of Medicare
DELIVERY SYSTEM AND PAYMENT REFORM
A common focus in discussions about slowing
the growth of health care spending in Medicare,
as well as the health system as a whole, is the
introduction of payment and delivery system
reforms. Most of these types of proposals focus
on realigning financial incentives to lower costs
and improve health care quality and outcomes.
Some of these models are highlighted below.11
Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs).
With the Medicare Shared Savings Program
(MSSP) and the Pioneer ACO program,
ACOs are already being incorporated into
the Medicare program An ACO is essentially
a group of health care providers that work
together to manage and coordinate care for
beneficiaries. In addition, under an ACO,
11
10
providers take financial responsibility for the
cost and quality of care for their beneficiaries—
they can share in cost savings if certain quality
and cost metrics are met. ACOs represent both
delivery system and payment reform.
Bundled and Capitated Payments.
Examples of specific payment reform options
that can be used with ACOs or as stand-alone
approaches include bundled payments and
capitation models. Bundled payments, as
the name suggests, offer providers a single,
predetermined payment for all health care
services a beneficiary might receive during the
course of treatment for a specific condition
over time. Specific to Medicare, in 2013,
CMS announced a Bundled Payment of Care
Improvement (BPCI) initiative in which
organizations agree to accept bundled payments
for defined episodes of care, including financial
and quality-of-care requirements.
Capitation, or global payments, refers to
the provision of a fixed, advance payment per
beneficiary for a given time period. Capitation
rates can vary by region and depend on the
number of patients, the range of services
provided, and the specified period of time
during which the services are provided. In 2013,
CMS engaged a Capitated Financial Alignment
Model demonstration project under which a
state, a health plan, and CMS work together to
deliver and finance an integrated set of services
for beneficiaries that are dually eligible for
Medicare and Medicaid.
These are just representative examples of
delivery system and payment reform models,
including relevant pilot and demonstration
programs in Medicare, that will test and
explore the potential cost savings and quality
improvements associated with approaches to
align financial incentives.
his is not an exhaustive list. For more information on these models and other approaches, see the Academy’s website for
T
current and forthcoming papers on health care costs: www.actuary.org/healthcosts.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
Conclusion
Options to address Medicare spending include efforts to increase provider responsibility
(often in combination with more alignment of financial incentives), eliminate waste, use
managed care techniques to better coordinate care, and structure benefits to encourage more
effective use of care. When evaluating approaches to slow spending growth in Medicare, it is
important to recognize that improving the sustainability of Medicare also requires slowing
the growth in overall health spending rather than shifting costs from one payer to another.
As potential reforms to Medicare are considered, it is also important to evaluate the effect
those reforms could have on the viability of the Medicare program, including cost, access, and
quality of care.
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ACTUARIES ISSUE BRIEF JUNE 2015
11